Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The HC dismissed a petition seeking to extend the benefit of the proviso to Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules to exclude days between filing refund claims and issuance of deficiency memos for limitation calculation. The court determined that the petitioner's refund claims for zero-rated supplies (exports) made during July-September 2017 were filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54 of CGST Act. The court held that Circular No.125/44/2019 could not impose a fresh limitation period contrary to statutory provisions, and the 2021 amendment to Rule 90(3) could not be given retrospective effect. The amendment to Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 was deemed inapplicable as the petitioner's claims predated this amendment.
The HC dismissed a petition seeking to extend the benefit of the proviso to Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules to exclude days between filing refund claims and issuance of deficiency memos for limitation calculation. The court determined that the petitioner's refund claims for zero-rated supplies (exports) made during July-September 2017 were filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54 of CGST Act. The court held that Circular No.125/44/2019 could not impose a fresh limitation period contrary to statutory provisions, and the 2021 amendment to Rule 90(3) could not be given retrospective effect. The amendment to Explanation 2(e) to Section 54 was deemed inapplicable as the petitioner's claims predated this amendment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
